Giving up on the long-term unemployed isn't just wrong. It's dangerous.

JohnAziz

We shouldn't turn our back on the unemployed now. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

March 13, 2014

ADVERTISEMENT

Some financial writers — most prominently Bloomberg’s Evan Soltas, but also Conor Sen and G.M. Robertson — are claiming that labor markets may be becoming tight, which more or less means that unemployment has become less of a problem.

But does the quit rate really tell us anything about the tightness of the labor market? It tells us how many people are quitting their jobs, but there is a selection effect here. People who quit their jobs tend to be the kind who are skilled, confident, and happy enough to get a better one. That isn’t the whole labor market. Their actions don’t tell us anything about the less-secure people in the labor market — the almost four million who are long-term unemployed, for example. Arguing that the quit rate is an accurate reflection of labor market tightness is like arguing that sales of luxury goods are a good proxy for economic growth. It only tells us about the better-off.

I do agree with Soltas that the headline unemployment rate of 6.7 percent is an accurate reflection of the number of people looking for work — which some might consider a sign of tightness. Yet the number of people looking for work alone cannot tell us how much slack there is in labor markets. Growth remains very weak, far below the long-term trend, implying that there is still a lot of slack left in the economy.

The response to this from those who argue for labor market tightness has been that these workers aren’t really part of the labor force at all, because nobody will hire them. "The large number of quitters," Soltas says, "only makes sense if the long-term unemployed and labor-force dropouts aren't competing with them." Indeed, employers are routinely discriminating against the long-term unemployed. But saying that those who can’t get a job aren’t really part of the labor market is pure defeatism, and is especially weird given that the Federal Reserve is finally beginning to make progress on long-term unemployment.

So why give up now? To worry about inflation. If the labor market is becoming tight, then inflation may be just around the corner, since a tight labor market will lead to wage rises, which they reason will in turn will lead to price inflation. The Atlantic’s Matt O’Brien rightly calls those arguing labor market tightness "the new inflation hawks." They think the economy can't grow as fast as it used to, threatening inflation, which means we need to get ready to raise rates.

But this is a weird time to be hawkish on inflation. Core PCE inflation — a less-volatile measure of inflation favored by many economists — remains close to the lowest it has been in 60 years, and almost a full percentage point below the Fed’s target of 2 percent. The more widely-used CPI also remains below target, and close to the lowest rate in 60 years. In other words, the cost of progress on unemployment clearly has not been excessive inflation.

The risks of being too dovish are minimal. If the Fed leaves rates too low for too long, the recovery will proceed to strengthen, the number of long-term unemployed will continue to sink, and wages and, yes, inflation will eventually pick up. This seems like a pretty rosy scenario. Rising wages will be welcomed by workers after years of stagnant wage growth. Excessive inflation is not desirable, but the Fed has an unprecedented number of tools to deal with inflation, including hiking interest rates and engaging in reverse quantitative easing.

The risks of tightening monetary policy too soon, on the other hand, are large. In a worst-case scenario, tightening while unemployment remains high and growth remains weak threatens to crash the economy back into recession and send prices into a deflationary cycle. After five years of slow but gradual progress, we risk sending the economy back to square one and falling into a Japan-style slump.

So giving up on the long-term unemployed is not only defeatist, but a highly risky move that would imperil the entire recovery. Let’s not make that mistake.